Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
I reported on November 5th 2013 that the Fed is buying US Treasury Bonds and mortgage-backed securities. A mortgage backed security is a type of asset-backed security that is secured by a mortgage, or more commonly a collection of sometimes hundreds of mortgages in a portfolio. Hopefully the Fed is doing better due diligence than FANNIE and FREDDIE did when they backed all those bogus portfolios between the years of 2003 – 2005, right before the real estate crash.
Hundreds of thousands of purported AAA portfolios were sold and resold and resold again. Come to find out they were only the best loans on the top, toward the bottom of the stack you had what would have been considered F paper in a time before the FANNIE MAE guidelines were relaxed.
Back in the late 80’s when I was a mortgage broker, if you didn’t have 20% down payment, perfect credit and good debt to income ratios- guess what?? You were declined for a mortgage. It was the Clinton administration and the Democratic Congress of 1995 that changed the laws governing FANNIE FREDDIE and GINNIE creating the Community Reinvestment Act which relaxed the lending guidelines in order to encourage more lending in poor neighborhoods. What you wound up with at the height of the housing frenzy was bus drivers buying $700,000 houses with NO credit check, NO down payment and only stated income. These buyers caught up in the exuberance of the moment thought surely they could just flip the house and make some quick cash just like they had seen all their friends do; real estate is a sure thing right??
This was great for Clinton, he got to enjoy the real estate driven economic boom that ensued from the relaxed guidelines but a disaster for successors Bush and Obama who are still bearing the brunt of the crash.
Now the US Government backs FANNIE FREDDIE and GINNIE, since there was really little worry for banks, they might as well make all the mortgages Fannie Mae is willing to buy, and purchase all the guaranteed debt Fannie puts up for sale. But there really were no reality checks stating the obvious, if bus drivers that make $25,000 per year are buying ¾ million dollar houses –chances are pretty good that there are going to be some defaults; multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of below sub-prime mortgages that were touted as AAA paper and you get to see the recipe for disaster quite clearly.
But we the taxpayers again bore the brunt of the bungles of Congress and bailed out. In 2008 alone, the United States government allocated over $900 billion to special loans and rescues related to the US housing bubble, with over half going to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the Federal Housing Administration. On December 24, 2009, the Treasury Department made an announcement that it would be providing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unlimited financial support for the next three years despite acknowledging losses in excess of $400 billion.
When all that paper started turning bad, the buyers of the portfolios went back and took a second look at what they had bought and that’s when they discovered that - gee whiz - these aren’t really AAA loans at all! They are a bunch of bus drivers!!! Let’s prosecute! Let’s sue!! So in order to cover their tracks the original loan aggregators shredded the documents leaving no trace of the original F paper loan packages (including the original titles and title insurance policies). This is why we have so many people now going to court disputing that their current mortgage holders doesn’t hold clean title. Not a bad deal,getting a free house, for some that bought at the height of the market. Those that bought before all this fiasco can forget it; you can guarantee their bank has title in hand.
As to the rest of the herd caught up in the mess, the banks wound up foreclosing.
Now all of this could have been carefully orchestrated in advance. I have a hard time believing that all the bright minds out there could not have foreseen the obvious. Perhaps this was just a coup on the part of the bankers to snatch up the real estate holdings of the average American. Most of which are rental tenants now- no longer home owners.
Thanks for the questions and compliments on our grassroots constitution watchdog site, Loyal9.org.
I just wrote up the following as responses to those questions, but per the suggestion of Kurt, I figure I should get a bit more attention by opening this new discussion.
Thanks for joining with us, Brian and Rose, and for the shout out. I have posted here at Plan B a couple of essays we have published that were relevant to Plan B, but I still feel I am a newby to this community (a very welcomed one, thank you all!) and didn't want to just jump in and say here is what WE do, and I have been happy to listen and take inspiration from you all as well.
For those of you who haven't checked Loyal9.org out (or even heard of it YET), what we do is track legislation, watching out for bills that undercut (or support) the constitution. We send out a "red alert" email to members when these betrayals are on the table (often snuck through as parapraphs buried in a thousand pages), and provide letters ready to send to our legislators in seconds. Then, after the vote, we send out a follow up note letting you know how YOUR representative voted and provide a follow up letter to let him or her know we are watching and grateful or watching and really really mad and their days in office are numbered.
I agree with you, Brian. Why can't there be more sites like this? Loyal 9 started with six people spread over four states and we have spread to 22 states in just six months since launch. We didn't set out to create such a site. It should have existed already. There are many sites and communities spreading the word to wake up the people to our danger, like Freedom Connector and Plan B group, Judge Napolatino and Ron Paul and so many others, but they don't necessarily facilitate the ACTION to DO something once we are riled up. And there are letter writing campaign sites but they are usually issue oriented -- guns or taxes or health. There was nothing we could find to act that was Bill of Rights, no more no less. So we made it.
Truly grassroots. The idea was my brother Luke's. He's a screenwriter. He and I, a school teacher, do a majority of the operations to keep it going. We had two buddies who are patent-holding programmers obsessed with security, privacy, and reliability. They made this thing work simple and slick. A designer jumped on board to keep things clean and simple. A constitutional lawyer and senate staffer consult to make sure we know what we are talking about and that what we are doing works.
From there it is just spreading person to person. If you check it out and love it, join with us and pass it on
Six Reasons to Worry About the Iranian Nuclear Deal
The interim nuclear agreement between the Great Powers (such as they are) and Iran is creating a lot of anxiety for people who support the deal, because not much proof has been offered to suggest that it will actually work. And by “not much proof,” I mean, “no proof.”
Why support it, then? Because, so far, the remote possibility that this agreement will lead to the denuclearization of Iran beats the alternative: military action by the U.S. or, worse, by Israel. All options should be on the table, but, really, the military option could be disastrous.
Here are six reasons to be worried about the strength of this interim deal. These worries have to do with the particulars of the agreement, but also with the reality of the Iranian nuclear program, which is already quite well developed.
1. The deal isn’t done. Remember the photos from Geneva of smiling foreign ministers slapping backs and hugging in celebration of their epic achievement? Well, nothing was actually signed. The deal is not, as of this moment, even operational.
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked a question last week about when the deal might actually take effect. “The next step here is a continuation of technical discussions at a working level so that we can essentially tee up the implementation of the agreement. So that would involve the P5+1 -- a commission of the P5+1 experts working with the Iranians and the IAEA," she said, referring to the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany and the International Atomic Energy Agency. "Obviously, once that’s -- those technical discussions are worked through, I guess the clock would start.”
Focus on those last words for a second: “I guess the clock would start.” Do words like those make you worried, or is it just me? What this means is that Iran, at this moment, is still not compelled to freeze any of its nuclear program in place. I’m not sure why American negotiators would leave Geneva without having a fully implemented agreement. I understand that the technical hurdles to implementation are daunting. But equally daunting is the realization that the Iranians are going about their business as if they’ve promised nothing.
2. Momentum for sanctions is waning. It's true that the economic relief the Iranians will receive in this deal is modest, but it is also true that many nations, many companies and the Iranians themselves are seeing this agreement as the beginning of the end of the sanctions regime. Iran is already making a push to recapture its dominant role in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. U.S. officials believe they can hold the line on sanctions, but it is reasonable to assume that they will come under increasing pressure from countries such as South Korea, Japan, India and China, which could very easily convince themselves that Iran is preparing to act in a more responsible manner (after all, it replaced its snarling, Holocaust-denying president with a smiling, savvy president) and should be reopened for business.
3. The (still unenforced) document agreed upon in Geneva promises Iran an eventual exit from nuclear monitoring. The final (theoretical) deal, the document states, will “have a specified long-term duration to be agreed upon,” after which the Iranian nuclear program “will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state” that is part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. From what I’m told, the U.S. hopes this eventual agreement, should it come to pass, would last 15 years; the Iranians hope to escape this burden in five. After the agreement loses its legal force, Iran could run however many centrifuges it chooses to run. This is not a comforting idea.
4. The biggest concession to the Iranians might have already been made. Although it is the West’s position that it has not granted Iran the so-called right to enrich, the text of the interim agreement states that the permanent deal will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters.” Essentially, Barack Obama's administration has already conceded, before the main round of negotiations, that Iran is going to end up with the right to enrich. Realists would argue that Iran will end up with that “right” no matter what, but it seems premature to cede the point now.
5. The Geneva agreement only makes the most elliptical references to two indispensable components of any nuclear-weapons program. The entire agreement is focused on the fuel cycle, but there is no promise by Iran in this interim deal to abstain from pursuing work on ballistic missiles or on weaponization. A nuclear weapons program has three main components: the fuel, the warhead and the delivery system. Iran is free, in the coming six-month period of the interim deal, to do whatever it pleases on missiles and warhead development.
6. The Iranians are so close to reaching the nuclear threshold anyway -- defined here as the ability to make a dash to a bomb within one or two months from the moment the supreme leader decides he wants one -- that freezing in place much of the nuclear program seems increasingly futile. When asked this week by al-Jazeera about the impact of sanctions, the very smart Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said, “When sanctions started Iran had less than 200 centrifuges. Today Iran has 19,000 centrifuges so the net product of the sanctions has been about 18,800 centrifuges that has been added to the Iran's stock of centrifuges, so sanctions have utterly failed.”
Zarif is wrong in one regard: Sanctions placed the Iranian economy under enough pressure to force its negotiators to Geneva. But he is right when he asserts that Iran moved closer to nuclear breakout at the same time it was suffering under what Obama has long called “crippling sanctions.”
One of Israel’s most prominent experts on the Iranian nuclear program, a former military intelligence chief named Amos Yadlin, said this week that “Iran is on the verge of producing a bomb. It’s sad, but it’s a fact.” Yadlin suggested that no one, and no agreement, can stop Iran from reaching the nuclear threshold. I fear he is right.
There are, of course, compelling arguments to be made -- and ones that have already been made -- by the Obama administration and its foreign partners in favor of this deal. Because I am both fair and balanced, I will do my best to represent those arguments in a coming post.
I'm doing things a little differently this morning. I'm using the titles and captions from Holman's OT Commentary and references to the readings. Yes, you'll have to get out your Bibles...
God Traumatizes Job (Job 40:1-5) God hammers Job by asking him unanswerable questions about creation, himself and the behemoth.
God Threatens Job (Job 40:6-8) God humbles Job about his puny charges.
God Taunts Job (Job 40:9-14) God taunts Job by asking if he has the attributes of the Almighty.
God Teaches Job (Job 40:15-24) God uses the behemoth to demonstrate that he alone is the Creator and has the power to harness this powerful creature.
And from the summary: Contending with God
"Whenever a person passes through the dark storms of life or when he understands that God is behind his suffering, there is a possibility that he might become embittered toward God. Such a disposition gripped Job for a time and provoked him to contend with God. Believers today face this same temptation. But God's people must guard their hearts against such evil thoughts.... For the believer to contend with God implies that God is in need of knowledge and wisdom. For any believer to question God demonstrates that the person, and not God, lacks knowledge and wisdom. Further, it demonstrates that the inquisitor is failing to trust God and is guilty of unbelief. If you are struggling with an embittered spirit, you must go to God, humbling yourself while pleading for him to intervene and remove your prideful attitude. Honesty and openness before God about your feelings and frustrations are wise actions. God's lovingkindness will grant to his people a peace that passes all understanding (Phil. 4:7). This peace, Paul asserted, will guard and protect the hearts and minds of Christians.
God, our Father, who are we to contend with you? You are the Potter and we are the clay. You are the Shepherd, and we are the sheep of your pasture. You are the Master, and we are your servants. You are our Father, and we are your children. Lord, we are eternally grateful for salvation that is ours through your Son and our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen."
HE CERTAINLY HAS RACKED UP ENOUGH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES!! HE ACTUALLY BELONGS IN PRISON FOR MANY TREASONOUS OFFENSES!! HE'S A NARCISTIC DIRTBAG WHO THINKS THAT NOONE CAN TOUCH HIM! JUST WAIT ... THE DAY WILL COME! MJB
Since being signed into law by President Obama in 2010, the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, has been stripped, changed and full of devastating consequences for the American economy and American families. It's clear by now that the White House and Democrats who voted for Obamacare, lied to millions of Americans when they said, "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. Period." We not only saw President Obama admit during a healthcare summit in early 2010 (before signing Obamacare) "that between eight million and nine million people may very well lose the coverage that they have, because of this...And I don’t think that you can answer the question, in the positive, to say that people will be able to maintain their coverage, people will be able to see the doctors they want in the kind of bill that you’re proposing."
Then in September of 2010, every single Senate Democrat voted against a resolution that would allow people to keep their healthcare plans.
In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.
Three years later in November 2013, we saw Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admit under oath in front of Congress that end-to-end security testing was not done on Healthcare.gov before it was launched on October 1, putting the personal information of Americans at risk and making them vulnerable to fraud and identity theft.
As a result of all of this and the trashing of the U.S. constitution in the process, Associate Professor of Economics at St. John’s University, New York. M. Northrop Buechner is practically making the case for President Obama's impeachment in Forbes:
The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.
By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.
The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?
The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).
The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.
Impeachment isn't going to happen with a divided Congress, but that doesn't mean there isn't a solid case for it.
Ok, NFL wants to ban OUR rights to freedom speach & Guns.
I vow here and now I WILL NOT watch NFL at all this season and any further coming season until this is reversed.
BAN THE DAMN NFL. On board or not?
Show them WE WILL NOT BE PUSHED...NO MORE
TrevorLoudon.com: New Zeal Blog
Communist Party USA Chairman Sam Webb understands how Obamacare could become a huge stumbling block for Democrats attempting to re-take the House and state legislatures in 2014.
He’s urging his troops to not allow that to happen, by covering for Obamacare’s glaring flaws and talking racism.
He also understands the incredible power of the Tea Party – more I suspect, than they do themselves:
It is amazing how fast momentum can shift in politics. And it usually happens for reasons that could not have been predicted.
Case in point: only a month ago, the reckless shutdown of the federal government left its engineers — the tea party and the Republican Party — weakened, and the president and Democrats energized and with the wind at their back.
And beyond Washington, the people’s movement in the shutdown’s wake was energized too.
But this newly acquired momentum turned out to be far more momentary than most anticipated, myself included. In fact, it lasted only a few days. Why? Because Republicans seized the opportunity provided by the big problems with the rollout of the Affordable Health Care Act. They were all over it…
Literally, overnight the atmosphere changed for the worse. President Obama and Democrats, rather than riding a wave, found themselves on the defensive. And the Republicans’ shutdown disaster became a distant memory.
So stop grumbling comrades, and get back on the attack.
Now, if the health insurance exchanges are running smoothly by the end of the year, as they appear to be in many states, much of the furor will die out. But if they aren’t, Obamacare will be turned by the far right into a metaphor for “broken government” and the prospects of unseating Republicans in Congress and statehouses next fall will become problematic.
Which means that grumbling about the problems of the health care rollout heard in some progressive and left circles needs to give way to actively resisting the right wing’s campaign to kill Obamacare and regain the initiative leading into the midterm and 2016 elections.
Sam Webb, understands full well that the entire future direction of the country is at stake:
With all its shortcomings, Obamacare is a step in the right direction; it extends health care – a social right – to millions who up to now have none, and partially curbs the power of the health care industry, while its defeat would set back the struggle for health care for all much longer than I would care to think. That’s why the far right is fighting it so hard!
Thus, energizing, uniting, and raising the understanding of ever more people to oppose right-wing extremism in every arena of struggle – not least of which is defense of the Affordable Health Care Act – is the order of the day.
Of critical importance in this regard is the fight against racism in its material and ideological forms. Racism was the main vehicle used to bust up the New Deal coalition and fuel the ascendancy of the right wing over the past three or more decades. By the same token, the struggle against it is at the core of building a movement with the ideological, political, and organizational capacity and unity to dislodge the right and usher in an era of deep going progressive, even radical, change.
Sam Webb’s message is clear: Unity on the left, defend Obamacare at all costs and play the race card at every conceivable opportunity.
Sound familiar folks?
Ever wonder where Barack Obama gets his strategies from?
Is this compassion for her constituents that she is confessing, or shear fear from the heat of their anger as the sticker shock from ObamaCare sets in?
Even Democrats are not contesting that Barack Obama lied repeatedly about ObamaCare in order to get re-elected (they spin away from that issue as quickly and as abruptly as possible). Now, an extremely prominent Democratic Senator – Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) – seems to be conceding to another Obama lie, told in order to help him get… re-elected.
WASHINGTON – Congressional Democrats are pressuring Republicans to once again extend emergency benefits to the nation’s unemployed, asserting that more than one million people unable to find work will see their assistance expire just after Christmas unless the issue is addressed.
Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee signed and sent a letter to Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) asking the panel’s chairman to hold a hearing on the approaching end of the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, characterizing it as “an urgent economic issue.”
“With the end of the year fast approaching, we must hear from Americans who just days after Christmas would immediately lose their unemployment insurance if Congress takes no action,” the letter said. “We invite you to work with us in setting up such a hearing, so that the human consequences of the pending expiration of the federal unemployment insurance program are fully understood.”
Republican lawmakers have remained relatively quiet about the looming deadline. A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would only say GOP leaders would consider an extension proposal.
Legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to extend federal unemployment insurance benefits through 2014 at an estimated cost of $25 billion. The fate of those measures remains unclear.
“Both parties have extended emergency unemployment insurance in times of high unemployment and we need to continue that now,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a co-sponsor of the Senate bill. “The economy is getting better, but unemployment is still too high and there are still three people looking for work for every one job opening. Congress needs to focus on helping businesses create jobs, not pull the rug out from families unemployed through no fault of their own.”
The unemployment insurance system is a partnership between the federal and state governments that provides a weekly benefit to qualified individuals who lose their job and are seeking work. The amount of that benefit is based in part on a worker’s past earnings.
States typically provide unemployment benefits for 26 weeks. The temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation, initiated in 2008 during the height of the financial crisis, allowed the states to extend that time limit. Last year lawmakers agreed to an extension and included a provision that allows individuals attempting to start their own businesses to continue collecting benefits even though they are not actively seeking new jobs.
Failure to preserve unemployment insurance will affect 1.3 million Americans who will find themselves cut off if an extension isn’t approved by Congress by Dec. 28. Another 1.9 million Americans will be denied access to the emergency program during the first six months of next year. If Congress does not renew the law, those out of work who file for unemployment benefits in 2014 will only qualify for state benefits, which last a maximum of 26 weeks. Reports show that the average unemployed person is out of work and searching for a new job for 36 weeks.
The federal government reports that 36 percent of those unemployed have been out of work for more than six months and the economy still has 1.5 million fewer jobs than before the 2008 recession.
Your support keeps freedom alive!